Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the early and medium-term outcomes of bypass vs endovascular treatment of occluded femoro-popliteal stents in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (the OUT-STEPP multicentric registry). Methods: Between January 2016 and December 2021, 317 patients in 14 centers underwent treatment for a symptomatic occlusion of femoro-popliteal stent/stents. One hundred sixty-one patients were included into the present study: 46 (28.6%) underwent open bypass surgery (Group OPEN), and 115 (71.4%) underwent endovascular revascularization (Group ENDO). Early (30 days) results were assessed and compared between the two groups. Estimated 5-year outcomes were evaluated and compared with the log rank test. Results: At 30 days, no differences were found in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events, acute kidney injury, reinterventions, major amputation, and all-cause mortality between the two groups. The need for blood transfusions was higher for patients in Group OPEN (17; 36.9% vs 13; 11.3%; P < .001). The mean length of intensive care unit stay and the mean hospital stay were higher for patients in Group OPEN ([0.3 ± 0.9 vs 0 days; P < .001] and [9.7 ± 5.8 vs 3.3 ± 1.4 days; P < .001], respectively). The overall median duration of follow-up was 33.1 months (interquartile range, 14-49.5 months). At 5 years, there were no differences between the two groups in terms of survival (68.7% Group OPEN vs 68.8% Group ENDO; P = .27; log-rank, 1.21), primary patency (56.3% Group OPEN vs 67.8% Group ENDO; P = .39; log-rank, 0.75), secondary patency (59.1% Group OPEN vs 77.8% Group ENDO; P = .24; log-rank, 1.40), absence of target lesion restenosis (56.8% Group OPEN vs 62.7% Group ENDO; P = .42; log-rank, 0.65), and limb salvage (77.2% Group OPEN vs 90.4% Group ENDO; P = .17; log-rank, 1.87). Conclusions: Both bypass and endovascular treatment provided safe and effective restoration of patency for femoro-popliteal in-stent occlusion in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Open surgery was associated with longer stay in hospital and increased use of blood transfusions. At 5 years, no significant differences were found in the rates of overall patency or limb salvage between bypass and endovascular treatment.

Bypass vs endovascular treatment for occluded femoro-popliteal stents in patients with critical limb-threatening ischemia

D'Oria M.
;
Lepidi S.;Esposito A.
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
Leone N.
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
Zanetti E.
Membro del Collaboration Group
2023-01-01

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the early and medium-term outcomes of bypass vs endovascular treatment of occluded femoro-popliteal stents in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (the OUT-STEPP multicentric registry). Methods: Between January 2016 and December 2021, 317 patients in 14 centers underwent treatment for a symptomatic occlusion of femoro-popliteal stent/stents. One hundred sixty-one patients were included into the present study: 46 (28.6%) underwent open bypass surgery (Group OPEN), and 115 (71.4%) underwent endovascular revascularization (Group ENDO). Early (30 days) results were assessed and compared between the two groups. Estimated 5-year outcomes were evaluated and compared with the log rank test. Results: At 30 days, no differences were found in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events, acute kidney injury, reinterventions, major amputation, and all-cause mortality between the two groups. The need for blood transfusions was higher for patients in Group OPEN (17; 36.9% vs 13; 11.3%; P < .001). The mean length of intensive care unit stay and the mean hospital stay were higher for patients in Group OPEN ([0.3 ± 0.9 vs 0 days; P < .001] and [9.7 ± 5.8 vs 3.3 ± 1.4 days; P < .001], respectively). The overall median duration of follow-up was 33.1 months (interquartile range, 14-49.5 months). At 5 years, there were no differences between the two groups in terms of survival (68.7% Group OPEN vs 68.8% Group ENDO; P = .27; log-rank, 1.21), primary patency (56.3% Group OPEN vs 67.8% Group ENDO; P = .39; log-rank, 0.75), secondary patency (59.1% Group OPEN vs 77.8% Group ENDO; P = .24; log-rank, 1.40), absence of target lesion restenosis (56.8% Group OPEN vs 62.7% Group ENDO; P = .42; log-rank, 0.65), and limb salvage (77.2% Group OPEN vs 90.4% Group ENDO; P = .17; log-rank, 1.87). Conclusions: Both bypass and endovascular treatment provided safe and effective restoration of patency for femoro-popliteal in-stent occlusion in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Open surgery was associated with longer stay in hospital and increased use of blood transfusions. At 5 years, no significant differences were found in the rates of overall patency or limb salvage between bypass and endovascular treatment.
2023
Pubblicato
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0741521423017287?via=ihub
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Bypass vs endovascular treatment for occluded femoro-popliteal stents in patients with critical limb-threatening ischemia.pdf

Accesso chiuso

Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: Copyright Editore
Dimensione 648.14 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
648.14 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Bypass+vs+endovascular+treatment+for+occluded+femoro-popliteal+stents+in+patients+with+critical+limb-threatening+ischemia-Post_print.pdf

embargo fino al 31/07/2024

Tipologia: Bozza finale post-referaggio (post-print)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.22 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.22 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11368/3066900
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact